The central legal point established in the judgment is that the owner of land adjoining a public road, including a panchayat road, has a right of access and can take action for obstruction. The absence of a government notification excluding the operation of the Panchayat Act in respect of the road is crucial in determining the right of access.

1. The appellant who is the plaintiff in the Original Suit has filed this second appeal against the judgment passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.103 of 2001 dated 31.01.2003 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Villupuram made in O.S.No.183 of 1993 dated 19.06.2001.

2. The background facts which are necessary and absolutely germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

a) For convenience, the party shall be referred as arrayed as before the trial court. According to the plaintiff, the suit road belong to the Kandamangalam Panchayat Union and is used by the general public of the Seramangalam Village. It is classified as road in the revenue records and the patta is in the name of the Commissioner of Kandamangalam Panchayat Union. To the north of the Panchayat road the defendant has got his property. On the east of the defendants property, the plaintiff purchased a property by virtue of a sale deed dated 23.04.1990 and has built a house and he is in possession of the said property. According to the plaintiff from the date of his purchase, he has been using the suit road to reach his property and his predecessor also used the suit road for the said purpose. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant tried to encroach upon the plaintiffs property on the north of the suit road and therefore, the plaintiff was forced to put a fence in between the property of the plaintiff and the defendant and also on the eastern side of the suit property leaving a space. According to the plaintiff aggrieved by the said action taken by the plaintiff, the defendant was obstructing him from using the suit road and on 18.02.1993, he started storing dry manures and hayrick in the suit road thus preventing free access of the plaintiff to the suit road. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the free access of the plaintiff to the suit road.

b) The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement however, admitted that the suit property is the panchayat road. He has stated that he is owning the property on the north of the suit road and one Radhakrishnan is also owning property on its south. He has denied that the plaintiff and his predecessor was having access to the suit property through the suit road. According to him, there is a north-south road on the west of the plaintiffs house which was used by the defendant for ingress and egress and therefore, he would state that the plaintiff never used the suit road to reach his property. According to him, the plaintiff has no cause of action to the suit.

c) The trial Court on consideration of evidence adduced on both sides found that the suit road being a panchayat road, the defendant has no right to prevent the plaintiffs access to the said road and therefore, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said finding of the trial Court, the defendant filed the appeal in A.S.No.103 of 2001.The Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court holding that since the plaintiff is not using the panchayat road he cannot claim right of access over the suit road and cannot object to the defendants action in preventing him from using the road. Aggrieved over the said findings of the Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff has come forward with this appeal. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law is formulated by this Court:-

"1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in coming to a conclusion that merely because the suit property is a public road belonged to Panchayat Union, the appellant/plaintiff cannot claim as a matter of right to use the road and therefore, the right of the respondent/defendant would not be deprived of to stop the plaintiffs right from using the public road vested with the Kandamangalam Panchayat Union?

2. Whether the lower Appel